Tamar Epstein's Heter: Baltimore Beis Din and major Israeli rabbis reject heter

Rav Chaim Kanievsky 

Rav Sariel Rosenberg    Rav Yehuda Silman    Rav Nissim Karelitz 

Rav Chaim Wosner    Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern    Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein

Rav Sternbuch's radio interview - RaP's observations

update with link to program and postscript

Listen to Episode #39


Gut Voch Rabbi Eidensohn:

I heard Rav Shternbuch on the radio tonight (Motzei Shabbos at 11 PM in NYC, and he will be on again) it was advertised in full page glossy ads in both the latest English Mishpacha and Modia magazines and they spoke about the Tamar case mentioning her by name as well as other parts of the case. It was interesting and a privilege to hear Rav Shternbuch speak, it was by phone and sounded like it was pre-recorded. The interviewer Dovid Lichtenstein seems to know some Halacha and tried to lead Rav Shternbuch along, but Rav Shternbuch was the consummate Halachist, very cautious, only responding to hard questions and Shaylos and not responding to speculations or theoretics that the interviewer threw in. Rav Shternbuch made the same points that you have conveyed on your blog and I have to tell you that I think you have done a much better job of conveying Rav Shternbuch's views because Rav Shternbuch speaks with that heavy English accent like an old English gentleman so the words are not always clear especially for an American audience not used to such an accent, so therefore as I say your Blog presents the case and Rav Shternbuch's point of view with greater clarity and with less distractions.

But as I say it was worthwhile listening and even my wife paid attention and listened to the entire interview with me. One needs great familiarity with sources because Rav Shternbuch is not talking as if to babies, it is after all the Rosh Bais Din of the BADATZ so he is brief, concise and to the point, very judicial which I am sure the average layperson is not familiar with. But for me it was a privilege and worthwhile. Surprised you don't know about it. Ask one of Rav Shternbuch's grandsons it seems who was mentioned as organizing it.

The other stuff will just have to play itself out and let's see where all the pieces fall when all the dust settles.

Here is this program with Rav Shternbuch - his voice sounds very old, very English and hard to follow because he is speaking as a Posek and such kind of Rabbanim are very concise and matter of fact about Shaylos, they don't go on and on and on. But the interviewer was gabbing away and trying to "make conversation" with Rav Shternbuch and that sort of trivialized the importance of what Rav Shternbuch was trying to say even though the interviewer David Lichtenstein did speak out in some detail what was going on with the Tamar case and mentioned some background as an introduction.

I see that "Moe Ginsberg" mentions on the post about that ad about the interview that this interviewer David Lichtenstein is on the "liberal side" of the Halachic spectrum which I also thought I picked up on the interview which was a little confusing because Rav Shternbuch was NOT conveying a "liberal" position. For example, the interviewer was trying to get Rav Shternbuch to agree with him that "pre-nups" could be good for Frum couples in America because there is so much divorce going on, and of course Rav Shternbuch objected to that.

So if you get a chance, mention to Rav Shternbuch that he should be more cautious about granting interviews on shows even though the interviewer might agree with Rav Shternbuch on certain points, like the Tamar case, but on the other hand this David Lichtenstein clearly favors pre-nups and he cited all sorts of "Mekoros" to back up his words and agenda, and then Rav Shternbuch answers back and it gets confusing who to believe and what was said and then people may be left with the WRONG impressions that Rav Shternbuch "said" something when he did not, all he did was "speak" with a guy, but did NOT agree with him but was being polite and did not say it strong enough since as a Dayan he speaks in a cold deliberate clinical matter-of-fact way.

But the interviewer stuck in that pre-nups may help to solve the problem of having Agunas, as if he wants to stop the problem of Agunas with pre-nups, and Rav Shternbuch told him that there have always been Agunas and even unmarried women, and that we try to do what we can to help them, each case is different, but if we cannot help them, we just cannot help them. It seems the interviewer had his own agenda and was milking this topic and hoping he could get something out Rav Shternbuch indirectly while siding with the idea that there can be no annulments. It was just an interview with all the risks that comes with it, the person being interviewed is at the mercy of the interviewer, one does not want to be rude and it is hard to know what will come next and how to respond to surprise questions, etc.

The interviewer threw in shaylos about genetically modified fish and was trying to get a "Pesak" from Rav Shternbuch about that, but Rav Shternbuch could not answer clearly because it was a hypothetical question that would come to be "Lema'aseh" in two years and as you know Poskim only answer the immediate Shaylo, they don't Pasken on hypothetical questions about "what might be" or "what could be" or "what will be" in two years time. Rav Shternbuch basically said that it is a Shaylo in Halacha if we go according to the Simanim, or according to the facts, and basically the interviewer was trying to get Rav Shternbuch to say that all genetically changed fish or animals with genes from non-kosher animals should be Assured while Rav Shternbuch answered that while it may be that at some point all Fish may be a problem because of the genetic changes when they add genes from non-kosher fish, but Rav Shternbuch chuckled a bit when he was told it would be a problem in two years time and of course he cannot Pasken on the air as to what would be in two years time.

By the way, the latest Mishpacha has an important interview with Degel HaTorah MK Moshe Gafni and he confirms what I previously posted on your blog that the passing of the latest Israeli budget by a razor thin majority of 61-59 was a victory for removing the dangers of criminalizing those who learn full time. He describes the inner workings of his efforts and the way he has worked as an emissary of Rav Shach, Rav Elyashiv and now Rav Shteinman, and much much more of how a disaster was just averted for the Charedi world in Israel had this fallen through. Very worthwhile article, that even my non-political wife read every word of it and then we had a serious discussion about it which is very unusual because she never focuses on politics, that is my department ;-} Try to get hold of it and post it if you can it is a seminal piece!!!

Be well and have a Freilichen Chanuka!

                          RaP
 ====================================
 Postscript:

The point I am making is that while in the case of the written word, like on this Blog, we can see and read in black and white what is being said and there are no distractions, because "oisiyois machkimois" it is not the same when being interviewed or in a live debate, where there are all sorts of other auditory and visual factors that come into play and can swing debates on STYLE and not on content.

The best known example of this in modern times, is the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates, when on radio and on paper it looked like Nixon had for sure won with his better content and grasp of the facts, but that was not so for those who viewed the debate on TV where Nixon came across as having a "five o' clock shadow" and was sweating and looked jowly and scary, while Kennedy looked the more handsome and charming candidate, something that the Nixon team had not bargained on happening and so Kennedy won on STYLE while Nixon won on SUBSTANCE but lost the 1960 USA presidential election to Kennedy in the end by a very slim margin.

CH"V I am not comparing Rav Shternbuch to "Nixon" but even in the glossy ads advertising the radio shows, Rav Shternbuch is wearing a Shtreimel and looks like the old sage that he is, while Dovid Lichtenstein looks like a cool dude and a "regular guy". And who do you think the crowd that reads Mishpacha and Ami identifies with most? Not the Rav Shternbuch types but it's geared for the modernisha Yeshiva crowd, the so-called "FBCs" "Frum But Cool" (that are the big supporters of the Kaminetskys)! And many of these types are the ones who WANT to have pre-nups and all sorts of Heterim for their fragile and shaky marriages that are increasingly breaking up (it is because today we are dealing with the "me-generation" of spoiled brats who have no clue how to be married and the hard work and Mesirus Nefesh that goes into family-building and running a Torah-true home.) So David Lichtenstein knows who he is speaking for and to, and it is NOT to or for the BADATZ Eidah HaCharedis type crowd that we can be sure of!

It's complicated real-life theater on and off the air and online for that matter and you have to be clever to spot to understand what is really going on!

There is a thing called "ambush journalism" and even "frum" journalists can and do indulge in it to some degree as you can see from this David Lichtenstein character, he sets things up HIS way and then invites Choshuva guests, who may be thinking they are going to get another "Kibbud" (honor) to "speak at the Ommud" but what they are in for is "Bizyones" (abuse) instead!! And then this radio or TV host throws things at them, curve balls, and just by doing that he is getting away with Chutzpa. Because he is acting like a "To'en" (advocate) and not an impartial honest broker who just wants to help Rav Shternbuch convey his message.

Thus Rav Shternbuch and others in that position are forced to fight through the static and run through the gauntlets and well-laid traps that types like Dovid Lichtenstein set for them, and then everything gets confusing, and the listeners who are neither Halachists nor Poskim, do not know what to think. The may easily be misled to think Lichtenstein is just as great a "Lamden" as Rav Shternbuch merely because Lichtenstein cited all sorts of "Mekoros" when he was just showing that he has no Sechel and displaying his Divrei Hevel!

CONCLUSION AND WARNING: Therefore, know that not everyone is smart enough or experienced enough to come away and know what is important and what is not. That they should be listening CAREFULLY to Rav Shternbuch and not to the half baked bobba meises of smarty pants radio or TV hosts.

Protest tonight in Lakewood

Rav Moshe Sternbuch on David Lichtenstein' radio show Dec 5th

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Let's call a spade a spade - The "heter" is based on embarrasing incompetence

Guest post by Ploni

An excellent recent guest post pointed out the difference between the meticulous and transparent way how the Haifa Bais Din went about its business in granting an הפקעת קידושין, as compared to this case.

I believe that it’s time to “call a spade a spade”: This whole supposed “diagnosis” imbroglio is really EMBARRASSING.

Who says? Dr. Allen Frances, who was Chair of the Task Force that published DSM IV in 1994 and before that helped prepare DSM III (published in 1980) and DSM III R (published in 1987).

… Unless, of course our anonymous רופא מומחה knows more than Dr. Frances does.

THIS IS A MATTER OF GROSS INCOMPETENCE, which assumes the illusion that mental health is like any other medical field. Dr. Frances KNOWS otherwise. This is NOT a matter of שיקול הדעת – not even remotely. RABBONIM NEED TO KNOW THIS!

What is necessary is a major campaign to educate the ציבור, including Rabbonim, laymen and the CLINICIANS themselves - who often don't know better.

Here are some examples of what Dr. Frances writes, quoted VERBATIM:

1. "PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS IS NOT BASED ON ANY PRETENSION OF MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY. It is a descriptive and fallible art, informed by research but RELYING HEAVILY ON SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVE BIOLOGICAL TESTS".

2. ... "Before making a diagnosis of mental disorder that will be used for forensic decision-making, a high threshold should be established for what constitutes reliable and valid diagnostic evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment. THE DISTRESS AND IMPAIRMENT SHOULD BE SO EXTENSIVE AND OBVIOUS THAT MOST OR ALL OBSERVERS WOULD AGREE UPON IT. ... Ambiguous cases of possible disorder might qualify for a clinical diagnosis to permit and facilitate treatment but do not necessarily satisfy what should be a much more rigorous forensic standard".

3. ... "The creators of the various versions of the DSM have always been fully aware of the important role it plays in legal proceedings … (e.g., DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007) … but they could not possibly give this one arena their highest priority. THE USES AND POSSIBLE MISUSES OF DSM IN FORENSIC SETTINGS RATE NO HIGHER THAN A DISTANT FOURTH ON THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES, following well behind DSM's role in clinical care, in research, and in education … inevitable difficulties arise when one manual is used to do so many different purposes" …

4. ... "DSM-III placed this short forensic caution in a prominent place at the front of the book: … The use of this manual for non-clinical purposes, such a determination of legal responsibility, competency or insanity, or justification for third-party payment, must be critically examined in each instance within the appropriate institutional context. (DSM-III, p. 12, American Psychiatric Association, 1980). This caution focused on the nonequivalence of DSM clinical definitions and the requirements of the legal system. … The cautionary statement has been lengthened and included as a separate section starting with DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). The cautionary statement in DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is significantly expanded".

5. ... "it is our experience that the diagnoses offered as “expert” testimony are often poorly done, idiosyncratic, and display a disheartening lack of attention to the careful evaluation and documentation of the presence or absence of the specific, pertinent DSM criteria".

6. ... "DSM terms have become so familiar to the mainstream population that THEY CAN SERVE AS CONVENIENT SLURS, SUBJECT TO ONGOING MISINTERPRETATION AND MISUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WHATEVER CURRENT BONE THE PRINCIPALS ARE CHEWING ON. The labels sometimes themselves become the bones. The diagnostic argument joins and aggravates all of the other arguments".

7. ... "Impressionistic, unsupported diagnosis are often inevitable in the rush of ordinary clinical practice, but such SLOPPY DIAGNOSTIC PRACTICE SHOULD HAVE NO ROLE WHATEVER IN FORENSIC WORK WHERE THE STAKES ARE MUCH HIGHER AND THERE EXISTS TIME AND RESOURCES FOR A THOROUGH EVALUATION".

8. ... "the psychiatric diagnosis may actually be WORSE THAN WORTHLESS since inaccurate psychiatric diagnosis is very misleading in legal decision-making".

9. ... "Custody battles can become the most painful, disorienting, and distressing of human experiences. The diagnostic evaluations typically take place at the worst period in the lives of the principals and often bring out the worst in them. BREAKUP OF A FAMILY IS A TREMENDOUS STRESS TO ALL CONCERNED AND CAUSES SYMPTOMS THAT MAY NOT BE TYPICAL OF THE INDIVIDUALS' PAST OR FUTURE FUNCTIONING … Even those who are usually resilient during times of great difficulty may now become anxious, sad, angry, scared, erratic, on a rollercoaster of emotions and impulsivity … Whatever are their usual cognitive and behavioral tendencies will be exaggerated … EVALUATORS MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT PARTICIPANTS ARE OFTEN PRESENTING AT THEIR WORST"…

10. ... "The DSM's caveat that there are “significant risks that diagnostic information will be misused or misunderstood” is NOWHERE MORE APROPOS THAN IN CUSTODY BATTLES".

Source:

Frances, A., & Halon, R. (2013). The uses and misuses of the DSM in forensic settings. Psychological Injury and Law, 6(4), 336-34

Channakah; Celebrating, Miracles in Battle, or Supernatural Oil?

In Al HaNissim we only mention the Miraculous outcome in the battlefield. When we light the Menorah, we recite "Haneiros Halalu", which discusses the miracles in battle.....

The Gemmarah in Shabbos 21b, on the other hand, only discusses the miracle of the lights....

So which one is it??

For questions and comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

 

Tamar Epstein's heter versus the Haifa Kidushei Taus Case: A Comment

Guest post

With the Friedman-Epstein story unfolding, a number of bloggers and commenters have raised the fact that there are precedents in the Israeli Rabbinical Courts for annulling a marriage due to mental illness or defects. The most often cited case is the decision of the Haifa Regional Rabbinical Court in Case Number 870175/4, handed down by Rav Nahari, Rav Yagoda, and Rav Rappaport.

Supporters of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rabbi Sholem Kamenetsky, and Rabbi Greenblatt insist that the “heter” given to Tamar Epstein was, in essence, no different than that of the Haifa Rabbinical Court: in both cases, the dayanim relied upon mental health professionals to determine that the husband has a preexisting mental illness, thus justifying annulling the original marriage.

Detractors of the Epstein “heter” point out that the cases are not comparable. The husband in the Haifa case was in a vegetative state and thus unable to give a get, making his wife a true aguna. In the Friedman case, the husband is alive and well and can give a get, even if his terms are not amenable to his wife.

By reading the factual presentation in the Haifa decision one can immediately see the obvious distinction between the cases. A more important point – and one barely mentioned by the various blog postings on the topic, is the procedural difference between the two cases.

About two years ago, the Epstein camp issued press releases claiming that Tamar Epstein was “free”. Not a single rabbinical figure was willing to step forward and explain how a married woman became unmarried without having received a get. While there were plenty of rumors that support was coming from Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky – who together with his son have been friends of the Epstein family for decades. However, no admission on his part was forthcoming. On the contrary, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky issues a signed statement denying that he allowed Tamar to remarry without a get. In any case, the exact meaning of the proclamation that “Tamar is free” was left to the imagination of those following the case.

Tamar's marriage during the Asere Yemei Teshuva brought the issue to the public – and led to the publication of the “heterim” written by Rabbi Sholem Kamenetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt. Rabbi Kamenetsky’s letter (in its various drafts) consisted of two or three typed pages and includes a short discussion of the halachic issues, as well as a factual section. At no point does Rabbi Kamenetsky claim to have spoken with anyone from Friedman’s side, let alone Aharon himself. The factual findings in his letter are exclusively based upon two sources:

a) Tamar herself, who presented the opinion of a therapist who allegedly treated the couple;

b) an “expert doctor” who diagnosed Aharon with two separate disorders. He never met Aharon, and appeared to base his opinion on conversations with Tamar and another woman who had been engaged to Aharon at one point.

Rabbi Greenblatt’s one page “heter” (350 words in total) mentions that most poskim opposed annulling marriages due to defect, but Rav Moshe Feinstein did hold that this was possible. Rav Greenblatt did not go into the facts of the case, relying, instead, on Rabbi Sholem Kamenetsky’s presentation that the husband is mentally ill and that this defect existed before the marriage.

The informal gag order having been lifted, we now know that Tamar Epstein was declared “free” – not by a duly convened Beis Din consisting of three independent dayanim well-versed in Even Haezer, but by “heterim” that ultimately boil down to the fact finding mission of a close family friend, Rabbi Sholem Kamenetsky.

Therefore, without getting into the halachic and psychological fallacies at the basis of the “heter,” we can see the complete lack of procedural justice in the Epstein case. No Beis Din was convened; Friedman’s side was not heard; the “dayan” who gathered the evidence was a biased and interested party to the case; the evidence appears to be largely hearsay; and the entire process was veiled in secrecy and, in fact deception: while Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky denied supporting the “heter”, both Rabbis Greenblatt and Sholem Kamenetsky wrote that he was, in fact, in favor of it. (There are also recorded conversations of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky telling potential marriage partners for Tamar that they could marry her, despite Aharon not having given a get.)

The Haifa case was conducted in a completely different manner. The 89 page decision (nearly 40,000 words) was published in its entirety, although, as per Israeli law concerning Rabbinical Court proceedings, identifying details were omitted.

The decision was given by a panel composed of three dayanim, who had no connection to the litigants. Since the husband was unable to appear, the Beis Din appointed a guardian ad litem (his mother) to represent him in the hearings.

The evidence was gathered from a number of witnesses, including those from the husband’s side. A number of different doctors were consulted and these doctors based their opinions both on written medical reports and on the psychiatrist who had treated the husband.

Even after the three judges came to their conclusion, they certified the case for appeal and the dayanim of the Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals concurred with the lower court’s opinion.

We can summarize by stating that the Haifa case, in all of its aspects, was conducted with an adherence to procedure and transparency.

Such cannot be said for the Epstein case, which has been characterized by a partisan, agenda driven decision making process conducted without any attempt at procedural fairness. The entire process was obfuscated by a disinformation and distortion campaign perpetrated by those promoting the “heter.”

Justice Brandeis argued that “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” If so, we can only hope that exposing this procedural travesty of justice to the public will cure Klal Yisrael of this infection and, with Hashem’s help, prevent it from spreading any further than Philadelphia.

Rabbi Schecter Interview in Ami Magazine - with added comments

   Rabbi Shechter Interview with comments by guest post

A pediatrician shows you how to calm a crying baby

Dr. Thomas Szasz - psychiatry and mental illness

Tamar's Use of Secular Evaluations for Halacha

   Tamar Use of Secular Evals for Halacha (5 Files Merged) by Ploni

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Should a special beis din be created to rule on its validity or should the focus be on investigating the rabbinic corruption and incompetence revealed in this case?

Guest Post

With regard to the proposed new beis din, it appears to me to be of extremely limited value for them to just determine whether or not the annulment was valid - although that is something that should be done.  The annulment is a total joke and everyone knows that.

It seems to me that what is needed is an investigation of so-called "rabbonim" who had a role in this matter over the last seven years, not just the psak.  It should include an investigation of what process they went through in making the psak and the other similarly reprehensible actions taken over the years, and what fact-finding if any was done by which "rabbonim" that would justify these actions.  It appears to me that there must be some type of reckoning as to whether it is appropriate for these individuals to have any leadership role as a posek, rav, or other type of communal leader.

This matter is not a matter of innocent mistakes, or people cutting a few corners.It appears to me that this involved the grossest possible incompetence at best, and more likely outright, knowing and  purposeful deceit, if not pure bribery and corruption. This behavior went on for years and years, including the most vile character assassination, not to mention a beating and attempted kidnapping that endangered the life of a child, which clearly constitutes a capital crime under Federal law.

This activity has created a massive chillul hashem and made a total mockery of Orthodox Judaism.  Given that the "rabbonim" deliberately made this matter into a huge public spectacle (such as articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and demonstrations at the United States Congress), they had to have known that this "annulment" would become very public. 

So while it is true and important to show that the annulment was not valid and the resulting children would be mamzerim - but there is a much greater question that needs to be address. The larger question is about the apparent massive incompetence and corruption at the highest levels of so-called Orthodox leadership in the United States. Included in this is the silence of other's in leadership positions and why they ignored what everyone knows is true?   Failure to hold those rabbis who were involved in corrupting the halachic proces will just guarantee that similar or even worse episodes will happen in the future. Therefore this an opportunity for the Jewish community to do some long overdue housecleaning and rededication to halacha and truth.

R Shalom Kaminetsky: Architect of Tamar's heter - is guest speaker at melave malkah

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Rav Shmuel Feurst joined Rav Nota Greenblatt in giving the "heter"

It has long been suspected that Rav Feurst of Chicago was a significant factor in the "heter". Rav Greenblatt wrote in his letter that after hearing the "facts" of Aharon Friedman's serious and incurable "mental illness" he was willing "to join other rabbis" in giving a heter for Tamar to remarry without a Get. The question has been who are the other rabbis or did Rav Greenblatt give a heter by himself because no one else wanted to agree to R Shalom Kaminetskys request for a heter of mekach ta'os?

I have gotten a direct answer to the question from a well qualified source. He stated categorically that Rav Feurst had agreed with the heter but he added that there are others. Rav Feurst is a well regarded posek and also a talmid of Rav Moshe Feinstein. Thus we are not talking about Rav Greenblatt having an off day and following  the Daas Torah of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky. We see that there are poskim - who clearly should know better - who agreed to this "heter" without bothering to check the facts as presented by R Shalom Kaminetsky and did not bother to hear the other side. Thus the corruption in the system is significantly worse than if the entire responsibility was on Rav Nota Greenblatt. It is also astounding that a posek of Rav Feurst's stature would not acknowledge that he was a major player in the "heter" or even acknowledge that he was involved.

I have also heard reports that this isn't the first time that Rav Feurst has declared that a Get wasn't needed because of "mekach ta'os". Someone mentioned that he has done it at least 15 times. At the present time I do not know whether this report is correct and whether the conditions specified by Rav Moshe Feinstein were met in the other cases. However there is no question that in Tamar Epstein's case Rav Moshe Feinstein would not have accepted the false data and the false conclusions.

It is time for Rav Greenblatt and Rav Feurst to either defend their psak or retract it. As Rav Greenblatt has noted, a secret psak by anonymous poskim is not to be taken seriously.